RN Type-4X Poll 1 (role profile) – Vote now!

Well, the RN already has the T-45 for AAW, so… And the Type 22 B3 are getting a bit old.

“C”, then “C”, and finaly “C”… 😀

Actually, something like “C”, “E”, “F”.

Cheers

a
c
d]
😀

Again following Unicorn on this one, but I do agree- these polls are too broad! If these are to be escorts for carriers, then they’d have to fit in as part of the BG. But given the multi-tasking that happens these days- I feel that these vessels should be more inclined to be part of a BG but also lead a BG as well as offer long distance patrol duties and even single ship mission capable- the best comparison I can give here is what out new Hobart class are being built to do!

The hull you are talking about is C1. The optimisation of the platform, by your criteria, would be C, E, F.

If you try and put in area air defence the ship (1) doesnt get built and (2) probably isnt going to be in the right position to engage in its primary tasking – ASW – as it will be providing AAW coverage.

T45 exists and is the right platform to do the AAW. ABM/ATBM depends on a ‘skytop’ mode in the SAMPSON and an interceptor that will fit in a Sylver cell. These dont exist yet but, I believe, are described as feasible. The only threat that they would service, at the moment, is defence of port facilities against ATBM’s though so it could hardly be described as priority.

C1 or your notional T4x needs nothing more than a competent point defence missile system.

On the issue of anti-ship missiles, the RN has the potential to go for some pretty good choices. I would love to see the ships carrying an extended range Harpoon, i.e. effectively SLAM-ER, but for anti-shipping. It’s a pity there don’t seem to be helo-launched variants available for Harpoon, otherwise it would be a good option for the EH-101 Merlins, which are certainly big enough to carry such a missile. In the absence of an air-launched Harpoon, the obvious choice would be the Kongsberg NSM – good range, reasonable effects etc… Hellfire might also make sense as an alternative load-out, since a Merlin could carry at least eight, which is more sensible for ‘plinking’ smaller attack craft, much as the Sea Skua has been used for in the past. Hellfire/Brimstone may not be very big, but it has the big advantage that it’s not big, hence more can be carried! The warhead is more than sufficient for destroying small, fast, attack boats; and for anything bigger, you would want to use Harpoon or NSM anyway.

Ideally, I would like to see the FLynx project canned, and have the RN just buy a load more Merlins (infinitely more capable); and the Army get something more like the Blackhawk/NH90/AW-149. Future Lynx just seems to be a massive waste of money, especially for the Army’s roles. Since Agusta-Westland had been talking up the AW-149 as an option, just developing it for both Army and Navy requirements would make a lot more sense. It’s a newer helo, more capable, and frankly a better export prospect.

This is about the escorts for the CVF?

1a — “C”
1b — efficient ASW has to include SSNs
2 — “B”, but with terminal phase ABM capability

No #3, as the anti-ship capability is just an additional missile in the VLS (in that context).

My choices are a little different, as I see it being the role of the carriers to provide the land attack capability.

Thus in order.

a. AAW w/ ABM capability (Bit of a trend forming here)

c. ASW as the Type23’s will need to be replaced and you need some form of ASW capability, especialy if operating near the littorals.

d. Anti-ship capability (organically using the helo as either mid course guidance o the helo’s own missiles)

D is less priority than C as the carriers own air wing and recon assets have a major role to play here.

Unicorn

I’d go A, C, E.
Land Attack missiles are useful but land attack capability beyond the use of the 155mm gun under development is a luxury item that could possibly be deleted as long as the F35’s on the carrier are cleared for the storm shadow, and that sufficient numbers of them are stored in the magazine.

As Jonesy says, it isn’t entirely clear what you’re really asking for.

On the assumption that it is a simple question of the priorities, then it all just depends on what the ship is for. For the purposes of a hypothetical new RN destroyer, the first priority has to be air defence, preferable with ABM capability (if not on an AAW destroyer, then you’re not getting it at all).

A secondary capability, priority wise, would be a tie – both land attack and ASW support are highly important. The ASW role may be officially handled by the frigates and subs (and MPAs and helos), but having extra ASW capability is definitely a good thing, especially for a highly valuable carrier battlegroup.

On the other hand, land attack (I am assuming you mean Tomahawks or equivalent) is highly desirable as well; destroyers with a good size VLS can help with the time critical strike role. It’s not their primary role, but land attack is definitely a strong secondary role. I wouldn’t even limit it to missiles; with the new generation of naval guns and ammunition, the naval gun could be making a comeback!

I would definitely like to see the RN switching to the UD/BAE Mk54 Mod 4 127mm gun, since it should in future boost range of strike out to 100km or so (subject to the ammunition becoming available!).

So basically, my priorities would be:

(A) Air Defence, with ABM capability
(E) Land attack
(C) ASW

Your categories are too broad Planeman.

Land attack could easily mean amphibious landing capability and then the issue becomes what level of land-attack is desired or deemed necessary?. Are we being expected to be able to put forces ashore on the Chinese mainland unsupported or handle unopposed landings on moderate threat states?

Air defence could mean carriers, Hawkeyes etc. What is the threat level we are intending to measure up against?. Again single-handed against everything in the PLANAF/PLAAF inventory or everything in the, for example, Libyan inventory?.

In these types of thread you must set the context before you can detail the force mix necessary to counter it.

E (land attack)
B (air defense)
C (anti-submarine)

my vote is:

A, E, C